If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Feel free to shoot me down in flames, but, is it such a bad thing to have folks picking holes in our case. Not sure if it matters whether a poster is a paddler, an angler, a lawyer, or otherwise. If they're not a paddler but are putting forward sensible counter arguments to our claims (which we see only from our point of view) we need to listen and learn, because that's what will happen if this ever gets to court. Every possible attempt will be made to discredit our evidence. We should welcome criticism from 'outsiders' as it gives us plenty of practice at defending our beliefs, and it may well highlight weaknesses in our case, which we need to know about... if there are any.

Feel free to shoot me down in flames, but, is it such a bad thing to have folks picking holes in our case. Not sure if it matters whether a poster is a paddler, an angler, a lawyer, or otherwise. If they're not a paddler but are putting forward sensible counter arguments to our claims (which we see only from our point of view) we need to listen and learn, because that's what will happen if this ever gets to court. Every possible attempt will be made to discredit our evidence. We should welcome criticism from 'outsiders' as it gives us plenty of practice at defending our beliefs, and it may well highlight weaknesses in our case, which we need to know about... if there are any.

I don't care if they are a paddler or not, or whether they pick holes in the legal argument, after all I'm a fisherman as well as a canoe-ist.......what I do like to see are posters who are open about who they are and who/what they represent

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

So the Act wasnít drawn up to allow navigation at all, it was written to see that weirs and fish holding pools were removed.

Of course not. Why would you need a Statute to allow something that had always been allowed anyway.

Originally Posted by Robbo11

Once the weirs and weir pools designed to hold fish were removed, then (rightful?) passage would be possible.

The preamble of the Act refers to the objectives of Magna Carta at which time the ownership of land (and therefore riparian rights) hadn't been thought of so which (rightful?) passage did you have in mind and what is your evidence for it?

Originally Posted by Robbo11

It is clear therefore that those wishing to rely on this Act to promote their personal paddling interests, supposedly granted to them under the above statute, .....

I don't know anyone wishing to rely on this Act granting rights. I don't know of any evidence that there ever was a time when the public right of navigation didn't already exist and therefore required granting.

A legally trained person would weigh up the chances of each side winning at court and advise their client appropriately I've looked at the paperwork, the caselaw and the statutes and I wouldn't give you a price of making this one stick. Just to make the same legal argument, using the same piece of legislation, I could walk into our EA offices, brandish the W&FG Act 1472 and hold the flood defense personnel liable under the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985 s(6) 1) for not removing their telemetry weirs. I'd get away with it for a few days, and blag it for a few more but it will get me nowhere in the end.

The tactic of writing to the National Trust, a well known soft target; holding them to account and when they don't answer use that as acknowledgement of free access, is a shot in the dark. If you wrote to me quoting Acts from the 15th century, I wouldn't even take you seriously. I certinaly wouldn't want to engage with you.

You wouldn't believe the amount of access I've managed to get by meeting people and asking nicely. It is all likely to be put in jeopardy because a few people want to scrape their way down DD to prove a point and another to have the last laugh over Fish Legal. We don't contribute anything to water quality, invasive species removal, litter picking, control of pollution, restoration of rivers, enhancement of species. We have no right to demand anything. In what other area of life does a nil contributor ever get anything, other than a thief or a banker?

There are parts of the Dove with proper keepers, paid for by anglers. Those that aren’t keepered are managed by the incumbent membership during work parties. The clubs supporting a keeper will be doing so through their subs, those in work parties will be putting the gaft in themselves. The fishermen don’t rely on a separate set of ideals to us, or general requirements. I’d rather glide through clear water than putrid and in-between rafts of waterweed rather than eutrophic algae and this is a shared aim. We are benefiting from their efforts without putting back. Each angler HAS to pay an annual fee to the Environment Agency to go fishing in the first place or commit a criminal offence.

When I walk through DD I take advantage of the high rates paid by the residents of the Peak District National Park to keep the footpaths managed and safe. If those same residents wanted to come to Leek, they would be using facilities paid for by me. Quid pro quo. We English hate people pushing in when we are queuing and will not easily tolerate a freeloader. If we had done our bit towards water quality, or tidy-ups, or paid an annual subscription towards the management of the river environment we would be in a much stronger situation, but we haven’t, and don’t aim to. Instead the plan seems to be to take without putting back. It’s such a shame because the rivers around here are perfect for getting the kids from in front of their video games and on to the river. This can be achieved far better at the farm gate than the witness box.

I met a keeper further down the Dove the other day and he was explaining the amount of work needed to keep the mink from eating the water voles, and things you might not realise need to be done. If the Dove through DD gets overrun with paddlers, the fishermen and their money will go elsewhere. Who then will look after the place? Why don't you find out who owns the place and ask if you can use the river in high water, when its fun? The result will be the same and everyone will win.

Aah! Same old, same old. I pay for the Environment Agency and Natural England, I guess I also pay towards the National Park. You are most welcome to walk the Ridgeway which runs through my town, I don't expect you to pay for it.

I don't know what a 'proper keeper' is nor a 'gaff' in the contexts you use.

There are parts of the Dove with proper keepers, paid for by anglers. Those that arenít keepered are managed by the incumbent membership during work parties. The clubs supporting a keeper will be doing so through their subs, those in work parties will be putting the gaft in themselves. The fishermen donít rely on a separate set of ideals to us, or general requirements. Iíd rather glide through clear water than putrid and in-between rafts of waterweed rather than eutrophic algae and this is a shared aim. We are benefiting from their efforts without putting back. Each angler HAS to pay an annual fee to the Environment Agency to go fishing in the first place or commit a criminal offence.

When I walk through DD I take advantage of the high rates paid by the residents of the Peak District National Park to keep the footpaths managed and safe. If those same residents wanted to come to Leek, they would be using facilities paid for by me. Quid pro quo. We English hate people pushing in when we are queuing and will not easily tolerate a freeloader. If we had done our bit towards water quality, or tidy-ups, or paid an annual subscription towards the management of the river environment we would be in a much stronger situation, but we havenít, and donít aim to. Instead the plan seems to be to take without putting back. Itís such a shame because the rivers around here are perfect for getting the kids from in front of their video games and on to the river. This can be achieved far better at the farm gate than the witness box.

The difference between the paddler and the fisherman is that paddlers don't take anything from the river, they don't degrade the environment by leaving tackle hung up in tree's or in fish, they don't construct weirs which impedes the river flow, increase's nutrient build-up, increased BOD, which leads to the eutrophication you talk about. They don't populate the rivers with non-native sport fish or reduce the genetic strength of native species through selective culling. When I fish I pay for a licence because I do have an effect on the environment whether I intend to or not.
The problem with your view and that of the vested interests that you represent is that everything to you is a commodity with a price. As a paddler I don't need to own the stretch of water I'm using, I don't need to restrict the water to my activity only rendering it out of bounds to everyone else, I'm happy that other people enjoy the water as well as me and will cheerfully interact with anyone I meet on the way. I also pay my way with a BCU licence.
I'll paddle responsibly and I'll paddle or be dammed.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Why don't you find out who owns the place and ask if you can use the river in high water, when its fun?

To make this statement it is obvious that you have not understood the very basics of the access campaign, no one owns the water and no one has yet shown that they have the authority to control the navigation, until they do it would be counter productive to ask anyone for permission. We of course accept that permission is require when crossing private land to gain access to the water.

"Rulesare for the obedience of fools and theguidance of wise men"Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

Whilst I am supportive of the access campaign I have to say that the ' we take and use nothing so we should pay nothing' argument is totally wrong.

We all want to paddle pristine waterways as clear of obstructions as possible.

I am a paddler and an angler and I have over the years seen numerous waters where the lease has been surrendered by the controlling angling club. Left unmanaged a waterway will very quickly become clogged with weed followed by bankside overgrowth reaching further into the route of passage. Rushes, sedges and other marginal vegetation will then choke your route until it is totally impenetrable. Anyone who paddles the River Wreake from the River Soar will see this process happening as anglers are leaving the river.

Like it or not angling clubs manage many of the waterways you enjoy for $37 per annum, for those that actually pay for BCU membership.

What will the paddler do when the waterway becomes non-navigable despite our ancient PRN? Will he get his mates together to manage the waterway and clear the obstructions? No! He will check out SOTP and find out where every one else is paddling. Not on the navigable dull featureless Trent, Welland, Mersey etc but a nice picturesque smaller water without motor powered craft which has been conveniently managed by angling clubs.

So whilst I love my paddling I sincerely acknowledge that a lot of it is only available because of angling clubs, not despite them.

I applaud those here who are sincerely trying to achieve equality on the water, but the extreme fools who think they owe anglers anything less than a massive debt of gratitude for their decades of hard work need to open their eyes.

We should be encouraging marginal growth, they have been un-naturally supressed by various forms of management including farming and management by fishing clubs. Allowing marginal plants to re-establish helps stabilize the river banks thereby reducing erosion and they also provide many niche'es for more wildlife to colonise. This leads to greater species diversity, a more natural hydrosere and ironically more food for the fish to dine on. Rivers should become clogged with weed in the summer, its a natural process, it then promptly dies off in late summer. The main reason angling clubs remove the weed is to open up the swims to allow them to be fished. They are not doing it for the good of the environment and to suggest otherwise is nieve to say the least. I am a game fisherman as well as a paddler and I completely acknowledge that many of our river waters are much cleaner now because of the pressure the angling community exerted on the government in the late seventies and early eighties but again they weren't doing so for the benefit of other river users it was for their own sport. And I've been called many things in my life but an extremest is a new one on me.
What's so extreme about wanting to pursue my hobby without let or hindrence? I don't want to prevent fishing, I just want to be allowed to paddle without having to doff my cap to a land owner or angling club. And in case you missed it I pay my BCU licence, I like to pay my way where it's required, for example I pay a very small fee to help upkeep this site.....do you?

Last edited by mayobren; 21st-March-2013 at 08:49 PM.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Marginal growth -yes , but it should be just that in the margin. Uncontained it will spread.
Clubs do not strip all marginal weed just a couple of metres every 15 to 20 metres.
Have you tried paddling through bank to bank weed? I have, ranging from lily pads to Floating Pennywort it can be like paddling through treacle.

I am not preaching that anglers are doing their river management for environmental reasons so please do not twist my comment.

I said without their management your paddles would be fewer and the clubs have contributed effort and cash to create that 'perfect paddle'.

I am not accusing you of being naive, whilst your spelling may be, but read what I wrote and not what you want me to have written

Marginal growth -yes , but it should be just that in the margin. Uncontained it will spread.Marginal plants grow in the margins that is their biological nich.clubsdo not strip all marginal weed (the weed you're refering to is aquatic not marginal)just a couple of metres every 15 to 20 metres. So that would be in front of the swims then.Have you tried paddling through bank to bank weed? I have, ranging from lily pads to Floating Pennywort it can be like paddling through treacle. I wouldn't paddle in those conditions, I would go paddle a loch through the dog days.

I am not preaching that anglers are doing their river management for environmental reasons so please do not twist my comment.

I said without their management your paddles would be fewer and the clubs have contributed effort and cash to create that 'perfect paddle'. They have contributed to their own hobby any other benefits are incidental which was the thesis of my previous post

I am not accusing you of being naive, whilst your spelling may be, but read what I wrote and not what you want me to have written

Thanks for the english lesson but as you can see I can be as pedantic as the rest.

I repeat my question, What is so extremist about wanting to paddle a river without let or hindrence without having to doff my cap to the land owner ? Again I'm happy for fishermen to be on the same stretch of river as myself, I've never had a bad experience with an angler yet, but don't expect me to grovel at the feet of a "riparian rights owner" because he "improved" the water because for his own self interest.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Whilst I am supportive of the access campaign I have to say that the ' we take and use nothing so we should pay nothing' argument is totally wrong.Terry

Fair play Terry

As a newbie to canoeing I was shocked to read all this anti angling garbage that's all over the forum and although I totally agree with the campaign for access ; the route they are taking with this ancient PRN seems to a little eccentric to me yes more access but also there needs to be some common sense used as to when we paddle certain locations .

The last time I fished was as a lad with my father I have so many great memories and now I want my son to experience the same , He's only five but I have this vision of setting off for weekends away with the canoe wild camping beside a beautiful Loch in Scotland and getting the fishing rod out and seeing what we can catch ; proper boys own stuff

We are away over Easter at Loch Awe and I shall be having a lesson with the local fishing guide at Dalavich...

Why all the conflict surely Fishing and Canoeing are a perfect fit one compliments the other ...

Anglers are the major monitors of pollution and the dreaded Fish Legal is the only party that actively pursues and prosecutes polluters. The average angler, yes there are badd eggs, clears his own and others rubbish and does all he can to preserve the environment.

What I would suggest is that an acknowledgement of the work clubs have put in and the fact that it has enhanced the paddling experience in most cases. In comparison what has the paddling community offered?

Whilst I am supportive of the access campaign I have to say that the ' we take and use nothing so we should pay nothing' argument is totally wrong. but the extreme fools who think they owe anglers anything less than a massive debt of gratitude for their decades of hard work need to open their eyes.

Terry

Originally Posted by Izzetafox

Where have I asked anyone to doff their cap? Or even implied such.

This is exactly what your implied

Anglers are the major monitors of pollution and the dreaded Fish Legal is the only party that actively pursues and prosecutes polluters. The average angler, yes there are badd eggs, clears his own and others rubbish and does all he can to preserve the environment.

Once again I've no problem with anglers........I am one

What I would suggest is that an acknowledgement of the work clubs have put in and the fact that it has enhanced the paddling experience in most cases.Once again any benefit to the paddler is incidental ......should I be grateful to the oil giants because global warming means more floodwaters for me to paddle? In comparison what has the paddling community offered?You only have to read the bloggs on here to see that many paddlers take rubbish off of the rivers or participate in clean ups.

Paddlers don't need to alter their environment in order to enjoy their sport, and they don't have to be grateful to anglers organisation's or landowners for any incidental "improvements" to a water course. All we leave is a crease on the water.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Paddlers don't need to alter their environment in order to enjoy their sport, and they don't have to be grateful to anglers organisation's or landowners for any incidental "improvements" to a water course. All we leave is a crease on the water.

I totally agree. Well put.

"Your everlasting summer, you can see it fading fast. So you grab a piece of something that you think is gonna last."Crow Trip Log

I think we have a chicken and egg situation here, the Anglers and Riparian owners have spent the last few decades doing their best to keep paddlers off the water and at the same time complaining that we do not pay enough nor do enough towards river maintenance. When they accept that we have just as much right to use the rivers as they do then we can start to work together looking after them. We would welcome a chance to help clear rivers especially the fallen trees blocking rivers and litter collection but it will not happen to any great extent until our right to be there is accepted.

"Rulesare for the obedience of fools and theguidance of wise men"Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

This is what happens when we do a clean up. You just can't please some folks. I've reported pollution incidents on our river that have gone unnoticed by other river users, but then I'm on the river all year round, not just during the 'season'
It can be difficult to be enthusiastic about helping out though when we're made so thoroughly unwelcome.
Paul

I agree with most of your sentiments.
However on the river clearing I have done it from the bank and from my kayak and never consider it to be as an angler or a paddler solely as someone who wants a clean river. I ask for no privilege or praise my reward is in the before and after.

I fear I am almost a lone sole in my views on the positive contribution of the angling community so I guess rather than discuss them I will stay quiet, in turn I will do the same on the angling forums when I defend paddlers. Is it a coincidence that on the leading forums on both sides that there are 20-30 contributors on the contentious thread when the sites have thousands and thousands of members?

Unfortunately it seems that in both these pastimes that the vocal minority purport to represent the silent majority. I am so pleased that during my time on or near the water I have only met the gracious and courteous majority of both groups.

Just for the record I have not contributed financially to SOTP, I HAVE contributed financially to Angut's campaign, I have written to my MP, I have written to DEFRA and the EA, I am a BCU member, I have an EA license and am a member of a number of angling clubs. I WAS a member of the Angling Trust and have had direct discussions with their Chairman on paddlers rights and PRN's and it was as a result of those discussions that I left the Trust.

the route they are taking with this ancient PRN seems to a little eccentric to me

Then you have missed the whole point of using the 1472 act.

What RAFA is showing is that we have always had a right of navigation along the rivers and that right has never been extinguished. There is not one single piece of legislation that has taken away the right to navigate, and we challenge anyone to demonstrate to us through actual evidence that there is.

The Act For Wears and Fishgarthes is not a solitary piece of evidence, and is not intended to be used on its own. Instead it is one piece of evidence of many empirical and historical pieces of evidence, which all put together makes the case as a whole.

As other have pointed out, you do not have legislation to tell you that you CAN do something. Legislation is there to tell you what you CANT do. Even the case law that is used to oppose PRN is demonstrably bogus if the fine detail of the cases is read.

So it is a simple question to ask those who oppose a right of navigation "show us the legislation that says navigation along a river is illegal or constitutes trespass in light of the fact that all historical legislation that has never been extinguished demonstrates quite clearly that navigation is a historical right"

We keep being told that navigation along a river is trespass, yet nobody can explain when or how navigation went from a public right to being trespass. Show us. Don't talk about vagaries, show us evidence. We've shown you direct evidence so it shouldn't be much trouble for those opposed to build a similar library of evidence, not the heresay and personal opinion that constitutes current opposition.

This idea that we paddlers pay nothing is utter cobblers. Firstly we all pay taxes which are then used to fund the EA. Secondly if we want to paddle on an EA controlled river then we have to pay for a navigation licence in a similar way to how anglers have to pay a rod licence.

At last an accurate statement. Pray tell me who said that paddlers pay nothing. Surely you do not think it was me?

Please tell me which post that was.

Once more you criticise me for what I have not said or even implied. Indeed as I have said ' I pay for the right to paddle via the BCU'. Our case will never be progressed whilst people make statements that are totally unfounded. Level headed readers should not appreciate such behaviour in the name of 'Access'.

Hi, I am fairly new to the river access campaign but have been watching how it develops and what information is being used to further the campaign? I am aware of an incident in the Yorkshire region (Aire) which has been reported on this forum and almost all of it is untrue. The canoeist in question has made all sorts of things up about the local angling club and the bailiff who challenged him on the river even though the bailiff recorded the incident/s on video??? I have seen the video and whats been stated on this particular forum is not a reflection of the truth, whatsoever? The canoeist in question has been recorded on video and he has been spoken to on the phone while on loud speaker and in front of many witnesses who heard the full conversation. It is a shame that some members of this forum would use such devious tactics to try and further the river access campaign. It is even reported on the river access map??? I for one am quite ashamed of this individuals behavior and in my opinion it can only damage the cause for access. The Angling Club involved in this has gone to great expense to get copy's of the deeds for the sections of river where they own "Several Fisheries" or the river bed. The river in question is not subject to PRN nor does it have any historical evidence to suggest it was used as a navigation. It does not fall under the remit of the EA or the rivers Trust it is classed as a private river.
The work by Douglas Caffyn has in some parts been copied from a previous dissertation by "Edwards" and it mentions the grant of pontage on the Aire between Connonley and Coniston. Any local historian could have told him this was not the case as it referred to the "Ancient Market Rights" which were bestowed by the De Rommille family upon three subjects to organise tolls for traders passing over the bridges to the local markets, Skipton being the mayor market town in that area connected by the old Roman road networks of the A65. A56 and the A59 . Both Edwards and Caffyn have got this information wrong but have used it as evidence to support their individual thesis.
How do I know all this information? I am the bailiff who challenged the canoeist on the river and I'm pretty disgusted with what's been written about me on this forum "see sporting rights" as it's complete and utter rubbish. Links to this forum have been sent to my place of work which is not good as I work for a charity!!! My contact details have been passed onto numerous other canoeists and I have been to the Police on two separate occasions to report my concerns over public order offences and harassment.... Your campaign as far as I am concerned has caused me great concern and has affected my work/ family life. I no longer dare take my kids fishing on the river in case I have another confrontation! I intend to clear my name by releasing video footage of the incidents which will clearly show the appalling behavior and manors of this individual. It will also show the others who have been involved in it that I am not the ogre I've been made out to be. I appear to be quite threatening and intimidating on this forum which is nice for my ego but as I only weigh 9 stone and am registered as disabled it does make a curious conclusion?

Angling officials should keep to their specified duties and navigation control is not one of them. The legality of those that fish is the concern of bailiffs. Club bailiffs have very limited rights. Environment Agency Bailiffs have extended rights but nothing to do with navigation. If a canoeists is fishing without the appropriate licences and permission then that is illegal and within the rights of a bailiff to sort out.

I am sure that kids would be safer when canoeists are on the river.

I have had too many confrontation issues from those that say they own our nation's rivers. All the shouting has come from the riverside person be that bailiff, riparian owner, fishery or angler, none of whom have the right to control navigation. I am not a person that raises my voice or uses bad language, my grasp of the English language is sufficient to avoid obscenities, I simply stand by my rights.

Doug

When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
Afloat in the White Canoe.
Alan Sullivan

Hi, I am fairly new to the river access campaign but have been watching how it develops and what information is being used to further the campaign? I am aware of an incident in the Yorkshire region (Aire) which has been reported on this forum and almost all of it is untrue. The canoeist in question has made all sorts of things up about the local angling club and the bailiff who challenged him on the river even though the bailiff recorded the incident/s on video??? I have seen the video and whats been stated on this particular forum is not a reflection of the truth, whatsoever? The canoeist in question has been recorded on video and he has been spoken to on the phone while on loud speaker and in front of many witnesses who heard the full conversation. It is a shame that some members of this forum would use such devious tactics to try and further the river access campaign. It is even reported on the river access map??? I for one am quite ashamed of this individuals behavior and in my opinion it can only damage the cause for access. The Angling Club involved in this has gone to great expense to get copy's of the deeds for the sections of river where they own "Several Fisheries" or the river bed. The river in question is not subject to PRN nor does it have any historical evidence to suggest it was used as a navigation. It does not fall under the remit of the EA or the rivers Trust it is classed as a private river.
The work by Douglas Caffyn has in some parts been copied from a previous dissertation by "Edwards" and it mentions the grant of pontage on the Aire between Connonley and Coniston. Any local historian could have told him this was not the case as it referred to the "Ancient Market Rights" which were bestowed by the De Rommille family upon three subjects to organise tolls for traders passing over the bridges to the local markets, Skipton being the mayor market town in that area connected by the old Roman road networks of the A65. A56 and the A59 . Both Edwards and Caffyn have got this information wrong but have used it as evidence to support their individual thesis.
How do I know all this information? I am the bailiff who challenged the canoeist on the river and I'm pretty disgusted with what's been written about me on this forum "see sporting rights" as it's complete and utter rubbish. Links to this forum have been sent to my place of work which is not good as I work for a charity!!! My contact details have been passed onto numerous other canoeists and I have been to the Police on two separate occasions to report my concerns over public order offences and harassment.... Your campaign as far as I am concerned has caused me great concern and has affected my work/ family life. I no longer dare take my kids fishing on the river in case I have another confrontation! I intend to clear my name by releasing video footage of the incidents which will clearly show the appalling behavior and manors of this individual. It will also show the others who have been involved in it that I am not the ogre I've been made out to be. I appear to be quite threatening and intimidating on this forum which is nice for my ego but as I only weigh 9 stone and am registered as disabled it does make a curious conclusion?

Max Bygrave posted this on another thread so I suggested to him that he should consider putting the video on YouTube so as to clear up any misunderstanding. This was his reply to me.

HTML Code:

[HTML]Sorry, I probably came across a bit harsh on my response to you on this. I have two videos one of the origional meeting on the river Feb 24th and another in April. These were not taken out of spite or malice and when I took the second video I didn't even know this forum existed? They were purely to identify the individual concerned and have only been shown to our club committee. I did not want to release the videos on You Tube publicly as I just wanted to put an end to all this malice and clear my name, which I'm sure you'll agree is not very popular on this site? I admit to stating that I may have mentioned something about the NRA? But I strongly disagree with the sentiment that I would not tell him who owned the Sporting Rights, the videos are the only proof of what was said? There are KAC signs all over that stretch? But this is where all this started.
I have copies of the deeds for the river and as you rightly point out it does not state anything about controlling the navigation? But then again why would they? They do however state terms such as "fee simple", "Several Fishery" and "without incumberance". So the way I see it. If there is no PRN and no historical information to suggest it has "ever" been used as a Navigation, no 20 year right of usage or ancient usage as can be seen on our website: www.keighleyanglingclub.co.uk The river is not controlled by the EA or the Rivers Trust and is in fact under private ownership. I'm sure you know about land ownership so I'll skip that part and move on to Riparian owners rivers etc. Whoever owns the land under the river or "river bed" has Riparian rights to the river and can exercise those rights to fish or navigate. They also have the right to prevent others from using the river for gravel extraction or fishing and navigational purposes,(subject to the above conditions PRN etc being met).
This is the law as it stands today.

[/HTML]

"Rulesare for the obedience of fools and theguidance of wise men"Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

This is what happens when we do a clean up. You just can't please some folks.Paul

Hey Paul, I'm the author and founder of The Vintage Hiking Depot. I've had a ton of traffic from this thread, I'm just a little baffled by what you mean from your comment. I'm terrified that I've unintentionally made some faux pas, or have upset someone on this heated thread due to something I said on my blog, I wondered if I needed to rectify or change something.

Hey Paul, I'm the author and founder of The Vintage Hiking Depot. I've had a ton of traffic from this thread, I'm just a little baffled by what you mean from your comment. I'm terrified that I've unintentionally made some faux pas, or have upset someone on this heated thread due to something I said on my blog, I wondered if I needed to rectify or change something.

The last thing I want is to p**s people off.

Kindest Regards

Kevin

Hello kevin, can I just say I've no idea whatsoever how this link ended up on this post, and you certainly haven't p**d any one off or committed a faux pas . I did post this link on a completely different thread about smock jackets as I had fond memories of owning just such a jacket way back in the early 70's. I seem to remember the original post was about anglers complaining after paddlers had cleaned up 'their' river. Computer gremlins eh!
Welcome to the forum.
Paul.

Landowner's and those who run fisheries may own the bank and the river bed,...but...,they do not own the

water or the air above, that is the law as it stands today.

They also don't even own the fish! All fish in rivers are classed as wild animals so are not owned by anyone, it makes no difference that they may have spent £1000's breading the fish, once they are put into the river they are then wild animals. They only become property when they are dead.

"Rulesare for the obedience of fools and theguidance of wise men"Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

1. Rev Douglas Caffyn, a legal researcher, believes that virtually all rivers that are physically useable are legally usable... you can see his work in the next thread.

2. The traditional view is that the person who owns the river bank has a right to deny access to the river for canoeing, and can sue for trespass in a civil court.

These two views stand in opposition to one another. No-one knows for sure which is correct. Canoeists tend believe Rev Caffyn; land owners and anglers tend to believe the traditional view.

I just came on to ask a question and it struck me that this first statement was quite telling. The two views don't stand in opposition as they are entirely understandable together... one can use the (previously/historically navigable) channel but the issue concerns the access points to it, or the need to portage at nodes along the channel.

It seems that establishing the areas where trespass does occur on each river is the necessary way forward. i.e. anywhere where paddlers use non-public land to get it or get out to get on with paddling business. If paddlers do not do this, then they are guilty of continually 'winging it' to enable their travels. But the points where issues occur are actually going to be relatively few on each river. (They may however, mean that navigation becomes impossible because of potential trespass).

An issue I'm interested to know about is what is the liability of the landowner where obstruction of the navigable channel occurs as a result of lack management of their own land. In other words, I would assume that landowners would be unlikely to be able to seek trespass when their land-managment (or lack of it - lets say a tree fall) has resulted in the blockage of the navigation, even if they dispute such a thing exists.

This is quite different to something like a weir where there may or may not be continuing rights along the physical course of the line which supplied the navigation around the feature. (i.e. the lock)

I just came on to ask a question and it struck me that this first statement was quite telling. The two views don't stand in opposition as they are entirely understandable together... one can use the (previously/historically navigable) channel but the issue concerns the access points to it, or the need to portage at nodes along the channel.?

Pondweed
There are two separate trespass issues:

1. Am I trespassing on the river if I paddle on it? Caffyn says No, Anglers and Landowners say yes.

2. Am I trespassing on private land if I use it to get to the river to launch my canoe? Everyone says yes, except in some special circumstances like wiers, where opinions differ.

The link is to a press release from 2 years ago. The charity that it mentions creating now exists, The Canal and River Trust (CRT) has taken over from British Waterways and the plan is it will take on the navigation responsibilities of the Environment Agency in the next few years.

In practice this has no effect on the access/navigation issue, the CRT is only concerned with rivers and canals that have there own statutory right of navigation, and which the CRT either owns or is the navigation authority.

riparian rights

We have recently bought a house near the river Tamar. The riverbed and fishing rights have been sold. The fishermen say we are not aloud in to the river and have no rights over the river. I have just found this to be wrong and because we own the bank the riparian belong to us. This means that we control the rights of navigation on this part of the river. Many fishermen believe they own the riparian right because they own the bed. Where fishing rights have been sold separately from the river bank, I am sure you would get many willing riparian owner willing to let canoeists canoe.

Just a thought but what about waterways/lakes that are within open access land I can't see how trespassing laws could be used in such circumstances.
Cheers,
Rob

Whether a river is in open access land or not doesn't really change anything, there is in both cases a right of navigation on it. A lake doesn't in general have a right of navigation on it except for where a river runs through it and I think the open access land rules are specifically for land not water - so an enclosed lake within open access land isn't strictly speaking any better for us than one elsewhere.

Where there is a difference is that open access land gives much greater physical access to the river for launching canoes so from that point of view it is better even though the trespass law is weak and from any practical point of view pretty useless.

I've looked at the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which created the right to roam and open access land. I didn't find anything that would empower any restriction on pre-existing rights to use rivers for water-sports. There is provision to restrict or redefine public rights on byways but section 48.5 makes it clear that these do not extend to anything that would represent an interference with rights of navigation. https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open...-right-to-roam is therefore very misleading but is salvaged by the use of "usually" - you usually can't use access land for water-sports because your chosen vessel will not float. The obvious exception is watery places like rivers.

SCHEDULE 2
Restrictions to be observed by persons exercising right of access
General restrictions

1 Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he—

................

(b)uses a vessel or sailboard on any non-tidal water,

Rather badly worded because clearly you would not be 'on land' to use a vessel, but you might be 'on land' with your vessel with the purpose of accessing non-tidal water. If this is what they were hoping to outlaw, you would think they would have used better wording.